State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Hill

1 Citing case

  1. People's Tr. Ins. Co. v. Foster

    333 So. 3d 773 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2022)   Cited 3 times
    Observing that "[c]ertorari petitions seeking relief from discovery orders face a high hurdle" (citing McCloud v. Tackett , 308 So. 3d 687, 688–89 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020) )

    The Florida Supreme Court and district courts have repeatedly quashed erroneous discovery orders on certiorari, for example, where insurers erroneously have been ordered to turn over sensitive business materials that are irrelevant or prematurely sought. See, e.g.,Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So. 2d 91, 95 (Fla. 1995) (quashing a district court decision to the extent that it permitted possibly irrelevant discovery); State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Hill, 314 So. 3d 466, 468 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (quashing orders that permitted discovery of insurers’ claims handling policies, practices, procedures, manuals or guidelines as premature); Gen. Star Indem. Co. , 93 So. 3d 501, 502-03 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (quashing order requiring production of premature bad faith discovery); State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Cook , 744 So. 2d 567, 568 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (finding that the plaintiff was not entitled to materials relevant to bad faith claim). People's Trust argues that this case, too, presents an order that requires quashing.